The
wife and I cannot quite comprehend the reason why the Government is allowing
developers to sell units (and in one recent case, all the units in one particular
completed project) to their parent or subsidiary companies in order to avoid
paying the extension charges on the development's qualifying certificate.

For
those who are wondering what we are talking about, the Residential Property Act
dictates that developers with shareholders or directors who are not Singaporean
must obtain a Qualifying Certificate (QC) for a new development. They then have
two years after obtaining the temporary occupation permit (TOP) to sell all
units. Failing to do so, extension charges are levied at 8% of the land price
for the first year, 16% for the second and 24% for subsequent years.

The
original intention of the QC rule (as we understand it) is to ensure that
developers price their projects sensibly. Why
the rule only applies to developers with foreign shareholders/directors remains a puzzle to us, but the wife and I shan't harp on this too much
(protecting locals is always good, no?). However, the exception does provide an "escape route"
for developers facing QC datelines to avoid paying the charges by privatizing
as a Singapore
company.

What we have the biggest issue with is the "inter-company sale", which is
effectively a transfer from the left to right hand. This, the wife and I believe,
is a much bigger loop-hole and totally negates the very reason why the
Government had implemented the QC rule in the first place.

Some
may argue that the developer is already "penalized" as there are
substantial costs involved for the Group when a developer sells part/all of the units within
a completed condo project to their parent or subsidiary. Other than the
purchase cost, the parent/subsidiary will also have to cough up the 15%
additional buyers' stamp duty associated with such purchase.

So why do we
say that these "inter-company sale" is a loop-hole (and a big one at that)?

1.
The purchase cost is effectively just a "holding cost" within the
Group. So for deep-pocket developers (which there are many, given the enormous
profits they have made over the past few years), this represents a substantially "smaller pain" than having to slash prices to move units.

2.
While it is true that the parent/subsidiary is liable to pay ABSD for buying units
off the developer, there is nothing to stop the later from reducing the selling
price to offset the ABSD payable... all in the name of "bulk
purchase". And besides, the ABSD amount that's payable is comparatively small compared
to the extension charge, especially if the said project has a large number
of unsold units.

3.
The wife and I are not 100% certain on this, but there may be avenues for the parent/subsidiary
to resell the "purchased" units subsequently without having to pay the
Seller's Stamp Duty (applicable for reselling of private homes within 4 years
of purchase). So they get a heavily discounted price upon purchase and once the
timing is right, are able to not only recoup their investment but also make a
substantial profit - win-win for the Group.

If
there is indeed genuine concerns about the continual runaway private home prices
so much so that we are falling over ourselves trying to cool the property market, the wife and I wonder when
the Government will eventually step in to plug this mother of all loop-holes...

The wife and I reckon it all depends on how long the developer think they will need to sell all their remaining units.While we agree that coughing up the ABSD is probably a last-ditch effort, it may actually be a cheaper option than paying the extension charges - especially for projects that have a large number of unsold units.

Remember that the extension charges, unlike the ABSD, is not a one-time payment. It goes up to 24% of the land price from the third year onward. And the wife and I are aware of projects (built prior to the QC days) that were not 100% sold even after 10 years of receiving their TOP.

In the recent example of the developer who sold all 48 units in their project to its parent, they must have worked out the sum and figured that it was far better to pay the ABSD than continue to pay the extension charges.

This is the logical move for developers. After selling to their parent or subsidiary, they can choose to rent out the units. Under QC rule, they are not allowed to rent.

I think the rule of foreign ownership is to protect Singaporean interest. Don't want to have too many foreigners or foreign company holding on to Singapore property. Force them to sell. Other benefit is that when government land sale say there will be 20,000 condo units in the market, there will be 20,000 units. Maybe Far East manage to convince government to give advantage to Singapore developers.

I also think that the rationale is to prevent foreign interests in hoarding land, which I think the rule is designed with good intention. It perhaps should be more targetted. A rule with such a broad brush that affects listed LOCAL companies may end up getting different outcomes than was originally intended. Kenny.

Yes, the wife and I do agree that it makes sense for developers to sell to their parent or subsidiary as not only can they now rent out the unsold units (which you have correctly pointed out), they also do not have to drop prices significantly to try and move units. But it does negate the purpose (one of the purposes anyway) of the QC rule, which is to ensure that developers price their units realistically enough to sell within the stipulated 2 years after TOP.

Interesting you mentioned the benefit when comes to more "predictability" on the actual number of condo units built versus government's projection. But we reckon that even without the QC rule, developers these days will probably not buy a piece of land via GLS and sit on it for any prolonged period of time. And after they have acquired the piece of land, the decision on how many units to build still rest mainly with the developers.

Developers or individuals technically cannot save on ABSD or SD by artificially selling at a "lower" price. Loop hole have been closed by IRAS in determining the calculation based on purchase price or market value, whichever is higher. The most developers can save is a couple of percentage down of the selling price, but not on a $1 value.

Follow Us

Why SG PropTalk?

The wife and I are avid property watchers and self confessed "show-flat fanatics". SG Proptalk is our platform to share our thoughts and experiences on private residential property purchases and investments.

We hope to provide you with our "off-the-cuff" take on new project launches and other property-related stuff, which you may find useful in your search for that ideal home or investment property.